DOCSLIB.ORG

REPORT on U.S. ADR DEVELOPMENTS (2011-2012) For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REPORT on U.S. ADR DEVELOPMENTS (2011-2012) For REPORTONU.S.ADRDEVELOPMENTS(2011-2012) fortheNAFTA,Art.2022AdvisoryCommitteeon PrivateCommercialDisputeResolution* October29-30,2012 Puebla,Mexico byRobertE.Lutz Member,NAFTAArt.2022AdvisoryCommittee and ProfessorofLaw,SouthwesternLawSchool [email protected] (213)738-6758 I. Significant Judicial Developments A. USSC B. Federal Courts C. State Courts 1. Massachusetts 2. California 3. Texas D. Trends (Judicial) II. Legislative Development A. Federal – US Congress – Passed 1. Patent reform Act of 2011 2. Dodd-Frank Act B. Federal – US Congress – Pending 1. Arbitration Fairness Act of 2011 2. Fair Arbitration Act of 2011 C. State Legislation 1. Various States 2. State Mediation Update ADRDevelopments(2011-2012) a. California b. Maryland c. Georgia d. Florida D. Trends (Legislative) III. ADR Institutional Developments A. JAMS B. American Arbitration Association (AAA) C. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Dispute Resolution Forum D. National Arbitration Forum (NAF) E. CPR Institute * This report is derived from numerous reports on U.S. ADR legal developments produced by the “Year-in-Review” of The International Lawyer, various dispute resolution publications, and law firm, ADR practitioner and provider newsletters. I am grateful for the support of Southwestern Law School and for the research assistance of Danica Chang, Class of 2014. ADRDevelopments(2011-2012) I. Significant Judicial Developments A. U.S. Supreme Court 1. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S __, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011), reported on at last meeting but updated here,, holds that state law requiring the availability of class wide arbitration is inconsistent with the FAA. A state law that seeks to impose class arbitration despite a contractual agreement for individualized arbitrations is inconsistent with, and therefore preempted by the FAA, irrespective of whether class arbitration is desirable for unrelated reasons. a. In addition, FAA preempted the Discover Bank rule (which had previously held that class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements were unconscionable) and that class- action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements are enforceable. b. This decision is important because: 1) it effectively struck down the Discovery Bank rule; 2) critics argued that this decision demonstrated the Court’s pro-business, anti- consumer attitude towards arbitration; 3) the decision did not settle whether the class-action arbitration waiver is still valid when the plaintiffs could show “large arbitration costs”; 4) absent some legislative changes to the FAA’s breadth of preemption, Concepcion may substantially curtail class actions in contractual disputes. 2. CompuCredit Corp v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 665 (2012) reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that agreements to arbitrate claims arising from the Credit Repair Organizations Act are unenforceable. a. This is important because the CompuCredit Decision is part of a line of cases involving the enforceability of pre-dispute arbitration clauses that have come after the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. b. http://www.klgates.com/arbitration-world-06-20-2012/#a3 3. Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. (2010), __ U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 2869 (2010) ruled firmly against foreign-cubed securities class action lawsuits, thus named because, from the point of view of the United States, they are foreign in two respects: they are between non-US plaintiffs and non-US defendants and relate to the quality of stock market information given by a company listed outside of the US. “Foreign-cubed” actions refers to actions where (1) foreign ADRDevelopments(2011-2012) plaintiffs sue (2)a foreign issuer in an American court for violations of American securities laws based on securities transactions in (3) foreign countries. This case is important for foreign practitioners because unless Congress expresses a contrary intent, US laws apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the US. Following Morrison, several lower courts have applied the Supreme Court’s bright-line test to other federal laws, including RICO, the Torture Act, and the Lanham Act. 4. KPMG LLP v. Cocchi, 565 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 23 (2011), held that a court may not issue a blanket refusal to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act merely on the grounds that some of the claims could be resolved by the court without arbitration. FAA’s policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution, which requires courts to enforce the bargain of the parties to arbitrate, and cannot possibly require the disregard of state law permitting arbitration by or against nonparties to the written arbitration agreement. In addition, courts must examine a complaint with care to assess whether any individual claims must be arbitrated, and the failure to do so is subject to immediate review. a. The decision is based largely on Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, which held “when a complaint contains both arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims, the FAA requires courts to “compel arbitration of pendent arbitrable claims when one of the parties files a motion to compel, even where the result would be the possibly inefficient maintenance of separate proceedings in different forums. b. See also: http://www.karlbayer.com/blog/kpmg-llp-v-cocchi- u-s-supreme-court-holds-that-a-court-may-not-deny- arbitration-when-some-of-the-claims-are-nonarbitrable/ c. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=2&xmldoc=In %20FLCO%2020120502170.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3- 2007-CURR&SizeDisp=7 d. This case is important for all practitioners because it has to do with the Supreme Court’s pro-arbitration attitude after its Concepcion decision, despite some state court’s “creative” maneuver to avoid FAA’s mandate. ADRDevelopments(2011-2012) B. Federal Courts 1. Quindao Free Trade Z Genius In’l Trading v. P&S Intl. (D. Or., Sept. 16, 2009, 08-1292-HU) 2009 WL 2997184 held that a foreign arbitral award cannot be enforced in the US unless it is obtained in accordance with due process. a. This decision is important because it provides authority that failure to provide at least a translated summary of foreign arbitration proceedings served on defendant in the US may, in certain instances, be successfully invoked as a due process defense against the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award. 2. Bank of America v. UMB Financial Servs., 618 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2010) held that Bank of America could not be compelled to arbitrate its dispute because BOA is not a FINRA member and a party cannot be forced to arbitrate an agreement which it did not originally agree to arbitrate. If a signatory party to a contract with an arbitration clause desires to compel a non-signatory party to arbitrate its claims pursuant to another contract rather than pursue them in litigation, then signatory party should utilize the incorporation by reference method. This contract method promotes fairness and advances the fundamental goal of arbitration: efficiency. This decision is important for foreign practitioners because it also has to do with foreign signatory party who is a member of New York Stock Exchange. FINRA member ship is mandatory for NYSE member organizations. 3. Argentine Republic v. Nat’l Grid PLC, (D.C. Cir. 2011) 637 F.3d 365, 367 cert. denied, held that United Kingdom company did not forfeit timeliness defense in proceeding on Argentina's motion to vacate foreign arbitral award which found Argentina liable to company in amount of $53 million as a result of emergency measures which Argentina implemented in response to financial crisis, although company did not raise defense via motion to dismiss, where company expressly preserved defense in joint stipulation filed three days after deadline for service of notice of motion to vacate, and then raised timeliness defense in company's first responsive pleading. 9 U.S.C.A. §§ 10, 12; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(h)(1), 28 U.S.C.A. ADRDevelopments(2011-2012) a. This decision is important for the foreign practitioners because it has to do with the “New York Convention” (United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) which governs the recognition and enforcement of most foreign arbitral awards and is implemented in US law through Chapter Two of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). b. The Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, known as the “Panama Convention,” governs the recognition and enforcement of awards among member States of the Organization of American States who are party and is implemented in US law through chapter 3 of the FAA. c. State law governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments. 4. Republic of Argentina v. BG Group PLC, 665 F. 3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has vacated an arbitral award against Argentina on the basis that the investor commenced an international arbitration against Argentina without first filing a claim in the Argentine domestic courts, as required by Article 8(2) of the U.K.-Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”). The Court concluded that “the arbitral panel rendered a decision wholly based on outside legal sources and without regards to the contracting parties’ agreement establishing a precondition to arbitration.” The court of appeals reason that the intent of the contracting parties (Argentina and the UK) was determinative in deciding that the investor should have exhausted domestic remedies prior to commending the international arbitration, in accordance to the bilateral treaty. 5. Int’l Trading & Indus. Inv. Co. v. DynCorp Aero. Tech. No. 09- 791 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2011) Found that consent has no binding effect in light of its own independent duty to determine whether the Qatari courts are competent authorizes within the meaning of Article V(1)(e). a. Arbitrator’s “manifest disregard of the law could not serve as independent and additional ground for denying confirmation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shipping Act: Contract Vs. Common Carriage
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 18 | Issue 2 Article 9 Fall 9-1-1961 Shipping Act: Contract Vs. Common Carriage Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Law of the Sea Commons Recommended Citation Shipping Act: Contract Vs. Common Carriage, 18 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 259 (1961), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol18/iss2/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1961] CASE COMMENTS 259 law action of deceit. This, too, would have required numerous suits because the defendants were from different states.. 9 In conclusion, it seems that in the securities field strong but gen- eral regulations against fraud are a necessity. The judiciary must continue to construe the provisions of X-ioB-5 broadly, as was done in Hooper.40 The alternative is to enact more complex fraud sections into both acts. Judging from the history of common law fraud and deceit, as it applied to securities transactions, this result seems unde- sirable. Allowing more discretion in the courts and the SEC to combat technicalities presented by the swindler, as does the general wording of X-ioB-5 , appears to be the most satisfactory method to guard against future fraud in the purchase or sale of securities.
    [Show full text]
  • Shipping Law Review
    Shipping Law Review Seventh Edition Editors George Eddings, Andrew Chamberlain and Holly Colaço lawreviews © 2020 Law Business Research Ltd Shipping Law Review Seventh Edition Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd This article was first published in June 2020 For further information please contact [email protected] Editors George Eddings, Andrew Chamberlain and Holly Colaço lawreviews © 2020 Law Business Research Ltd PUBLISHER Tom Barnes SENIOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Nick Barette BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Joel Woods SENIOR ACCOUNT MANAGERS Pere Aspinall, Jack Bagnall ACCOUNT MANAGERS Olivia Budd, Katie Hodgetts, Reece Whelan PRODUCT MARKETING EXECUTIVE Rebecca Mogridge RESEARCH LEAD Kieran Hansen EDITORIAL COORDINATOR Gavin Jordan PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS DIRECTOR Adam Myers PRODUCTION EDITOR Katrina McKenzie SUBEDITOR Helen Smith CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Nick Brailey Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London Meridian House, 34–35 Farringdon Street, London, EC4A 4HL, UK © 2020 Law Business Research Ltd www.TheLawReviews.co.uk No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided
    [Show full text]
  • Christie's Fined, 'Common Carriers' Defined: NY Sales Tax And
    Volume 97, Number 1 July 6, 2020 Christie’s Fined, ‘Common Carriers’ Defined: NY Sales Tax and Art by Joseph N. Endres and Joshua K. Lawrence Reprinted from Tax Notes State, July 7, 2020, p. 6 © 2020 Tax Analysts. All rights reserved. Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. THE ENDRES ASSESSMENT tax notes state Christie’s Fined, ‘Common Carriers’ Defined: NY Sales Tax and Art by Joseph N. Endres and Joshua K. Lawrence unique sales tax compliance challenges facing the art industry in the post-Wayfair era and its broadened nexus standards. In another less flashy development affecting the art industry (and potentially any other retailer in New York that ships goods), New York’s Appellate Division in March issued a new decision attempting to define what qualifies as a “common carrier” as opposed to a “contract carrier” for sales tax purposes. This issue, which factored in another sales tax enforcement action in 2016 involving the prominent Gagosian Gallery, has long presented a problem for art dealers in determining the place of sale or “delivery” for Joseph N. Endres and Joshua K. Lawrence sales tax purposes. We’ll cover both of these are partners in the New York and Buffalo offices developments in this article and review some of Hodgson Russ LLP. lessons learned from each. In this installment of The Endres Assessment, the authors discuss the unique Christie’s Conundrum sales tax compliance challenges facing the art industry in the post-Wayfair era and its A Question of Nexus broadened nexus standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Briefing Cargo Claims in India
    JULY 2 017 LE GAL BRIEFING Sharing the Club’s legal expertise and experience Cargo claims in India LEGAL BRIEFING Captain Sumit Madhu Sharing expertise Syndicate Manager L4 Sumit joined Thomas Miller after a career at The UK P&I Club has collaborated with sea, primarily on Advocate, Mr V. Subramanian, to issue this tankers, LPG and LNG vessels. Sumit is also a Legal Briefing on ‘Cargo Claims in India’. This Quality Management is the third Legal Briefing in this series, Systems Lead Auditor with experience in TMSA, terminal and vessel audits. providing guidance to Members on the Sumit speaks Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi and Malayalam. His team looks after specific issues relating to cargo claims in the Members from Eastern Europe to jurisdictions covered. Other briefings in this Russia, including India, and have expertise in all issues relating to India. series cover Cargo Claims in China and Cargo Direct +44 20 7204 2114 Claims in the United States. [email protected] If Members have any questions on any part of LEGAL BRIEFINGS TEAM the briefing, please get in touch with your Jacqueline Tan usual Club contact. Senior Claims Executive Jacqueline is a qualified Our thanks to Mr V. Subramanian (Kumar), barrister and solicitor. She handles FDD and Advocate, Venky’s Chambers, 11 4, Maker P&I cases and is the Chambers, 3, Nariman Point, Mumbai 4000 21 , editor of legal publications for the India, for his assistance with this briefing. Club. Jacqueline speaks Malay, French and Hokkien. She is also a member of the Club’s Legal and Environmental Team working with Dr Chao Wu.
    [Show full text]
  • Amalfi Today! NO SINGLE
    Reserve your trip to Amalfi today! NO SINGLE Send to: Amalfi, the Divine Coast LAND PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AHI Travel FOR SOLO 8550 W. Bryn Mawr Ave. Suite 600 TRAVELERS Paid Chicago, IL 60631 Full Price Special Savings Special Price AHI Travel AHI U.S. Postage U.S. Please contact AHI Travel at 800-323-7373 with questions regarding this tour or to $3,545 $250 $3,295* Std. Presorted make a reservation. Program date desired:______________________________________________ Full Legal Name (exactly as it appears on passport) *Special Price valid if booked by the date found on the address panel. VAT is an additional $295 per person. (1) _____________________________________________________________ Title First Middle Last Date of Birth All prices quoted are in USD, per person, based on double occupancy and do not include air program costs Top to bottom: (unless otherwise stated). Price may vary according to departure date. Please call for further details. Single supplement waived for solo travelers! (Limited availability.) Handcrafted pottery, Email:___________________________________________________________ Vietri sul Mare Dining alfresco (2) _____________________________________________________________ Title First Middle Last Date of Birth Lemons from Sorrento NEW ULTIMATE FLEXIBILITY- The AHI Travel Passenger Protection Plan now offers a low-cost Any Reason Cancellation feature. Book worry free! Ravello Beach huts, Sorrento NOT INCLUDED-Fees for passports and, if applicable, visas, entry/departure fees; per- sonal gratuities; laundry and dry cleaning;
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law-Due Process-Statutory Regulation of Private Or Contract Motor Carriers
    Volume 37 Issue 3 Dickinson Law Review - Volume 37, 1932-1933 3-1-1933 Constitutional Law-Due Process-Statutory Regulation of Private or Contract Motor Carriers F.E. Reader Follow this and additional works at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra Recommended Citation F.E. Reader, Constitutional Law-Due Process-Statutory Regulation of Private or Contract Motor Carriers, 37 DICK. L. REV. 185 (1933). Available at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra/vol37/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Dickinson Law IDEAS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dickinson Law Review by an authorized editor of Dickinson Law IDEAS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS- STATUTORY REGULATION OF PRIVATE OR CONTRACT MOTOR CARRIERS Within the past decade the motor carrier has risen from a comparatively insignificant position to an essential and formidable place in the field of transportation. The wide- spread and ever growing use of the public highways by freight and passenger motor carriers for profit has not only proved destructive of the highways and a menace to the safety and convenience of the driving public, but has pre- sented new problems of serious economic consequence, particularly in regard to their position as powerful com- petitors with the railroads. It has become evident that besides ordinary road and safety regulations, such as limit- ing the weight of trucks, requiring licensed drivers, etc., which regulations the state unquestionably has the power to make,' it is economically necessary further to regulate motor carriers (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Carriers Have Their Day in Court Arizona Rejects Strictest Standard of Care for Common Carriers: Is This a Trend?
    Common carriers have their day in court Arizona rejects strictest standard of care for common carriers: Is this a trend? By Bill Poorten In 2011, I argued the case, Nunez care under the circumstances” did not equate to less care and would v. PTMTI, to the Arizona Supreme not encourage less prudent common carrier practices. As I argued to Court which considered whether the law allow a claimant to argue that in the determination of “reasonable care should hold common carriers to a heightened under the circumstances,” a jury should consider: standard of care; something more than reasonable under 1. A common carrier driver or operator is specially trained the circumstances. As common carriers include transit buses, 2. A common carrier driver or operator is a paid professional shuttle buses, paratransit vans, streetcars, light rail, trolleys, taxis 3. A common carrier driver or operator is entrusted with greater and even elevators the issue had broad implications. responsibilities because of the size and weight of the vehicle, number A heightened standard of care for common carriers is and remains of occupants, potential for greater risk of injury and damage. prevalent throughout the United States and is expressed in various 4. Passengers entrust themselves to the care of the common carrier to language including “highest duty of care,” “highest practical duty of whom they pay a fare. care,” and “strictest duty.” As noted in Nunez, the obligation required by the law of torts is In a unanimous decision, the Arizona Supreme typically the duty to use reasonable care. Before Court rejected the heightened duty of care standard Nunez, common carriers were seen as one of a group and held that the general rule of reasonable care for whom the law prescribed a duty requiring under the circumstances applies to common carriers a higher degree of care.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 02-1028 In the Supreme Court of the United States NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, PETITIONER v. JAMES N. KIRBY, PTY LTD., DBA KIRBY ENGINEERING, AND ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA LIMITED ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER PAUL D. CLEMENT Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. This Court should apply federal law in construing the ICC/Kirby bill of lading .................................................. 2 A. By litigating this question as one of federal law in the courts below, respondents waived any argument that a different body of law applies ............................................................................... 2 B. Even if the choice-of-law issue had been con- tested below, federal law would govern the interpretation of the ICC/Kirby bill of lading ........... 5 II. The question whether the Shipping Act preempts a state-law damages award in excess of the limit specified in the Hamburg Sud/ICC bill of lading is a question of federal law .......................................................... 8 Appendix ......................................................................................... 1a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: AT&T Co. v. Central Office Tel., Inc., 524 U.S. 214 (1998) ........................................................................................ 9 Albany Ins. Co. v. Anh Thi Kieu, 927 F.2d 882 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 US. 901 (1991) ....................... 5 American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443 (1994) ........................................................................................ 5, 7 American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello, 330 U.S. 446 (1947) ........................................................................................ 7 Armour & Co. v. Fort Morgan S.S. Co., 270 U.S. 253 (1926) ........................................................................................ 5 Borden v.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration REGISTER
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration REGISTER A Daily Summary of Motor Carrier Applications and of Decisions and Notices Issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration DECISIONS AND NOTICES RELEASED July 13, 2017 -- 10:30 AM NOTICE Please note the timeframe required to revoke a motor carrier's operating authority for failing to have sufficient levels of insurance on file is a 33 day process. The process will only allow a carrier to hold operating authority without insurance reflected on our Licensing and Insurance database for up to three (3) days. Revocation decisions will be tied to our enforcement program which will focus on the operations of uninsured carriers. This process will further ensure that the public is adequately protected in case of a motor carrier crash. Accordingly, we are adopting the following procedure for revocation of authority; 1) The first notice will go out three (3) days after FMCSA receives notification from the insurance company that the carrier's policy will be cancelled in 30 days. This notification informs the carrier that it must provide evidence that it is in full compliance with FMCSA's insurance regulations within 30 days. 2) If the carrier has not complied with FMCSA's insurance requirements after 30 days, a final decision revoking the operating authority will be issued. NAME CHANGES NUMBER TITLE DECIDED MC-12337 JOHNSON'S HAULING SERVICES LLC - ALVA, FL 07/10/2017 MC-160596 NANCY BAER TRUCKING INC - JASPER, IN 07/10/2017 MC-25453 GURDEV TRUCKING, LLC - HOUSTON, TX 07/10/2017 MC-26236 TRANSHORIZON CARRIERS LLC - PONTOTOC, MS 07/10/2017 MC-26385 SCHOFIELD TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS, LLC - ROMULUS, MI 07/10/2017 MC-26533 LEOPOLDO BENITEZ ESPARZA - RIVERDALE, UT 07/10/2017 MC-28221 MARION J WRIGHT JR - HENDERSON, NC 07/10/2017 MC-30010 TAK HOT SHOT SERVICES LLC - WAXAHACHIE, TX 07/10/2017 MC-31604 CAROLINA CARGO FREIGHT EXPEDITERS LLC - CHARLOTTE, NC 07/10/2017 MC-324552 HAGAN & HAGAN LLC - ALLIANCE, OH 07/10/2017 MC-32693 ROI SPECIALTIES, L.L.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relevance of the Common Carrier Under Modern Economic Conditions
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Transportation Economics Volume Author/Editor: Universities-National Bureau Volume Publisher: UMI Volume ISBN: 0-87014-308-5 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/univ65-2 Publication Date: 1965 Chapter Title: The Relevance of the Common Carrier Under Modern Economic Conditions Chapter Author: Robert A. Nelson, William R. Greiner Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7062 Chapter pages in book: (p. 351 - 379) The Relevance of the Common Carrier Under Modern Economic Conditions ROBERT A. NELSON AND WILLIAM R. GREINER UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Common carriage in the United States today is a patchwork of com- petition and monopoly. There is enough competition in transportation so that monopoly power, even in the absence of regulation, could not be overweening. At the same time, competition is not so complete that all monopoly power has been effectively checked. In short, the trans- portation business is neither more nor less competitive than many other unregulated industries. There are, however, significant features which set transportation apart from other businesses in this regard.Such competition as there is in surface transportation is generated largely by disparate sets of firms each of which has distinctly different propensities to compete. Where the railroads occupy the supply side of a market by themselves, competition is practically nonexistent. Where the truckers or water carriers can enter a market and follow their natural impulses, competition is practically perfect. The basic policy decision regarding the economic organization of the transportation business was made by the Congress some thirty years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Railroads' Common Carrier Obligation: Its Legal and Economic Context
    Railroads’ Common Carrier Obligation: Its Legal and Economic Context Francis P. Mulvey, PhD and Michael F. McBride1 April 2020 INTRODUCTION Purpose and Finding The purpose of this study is to review and analyze the common carrier obligation (CCO) of railroads and determine whether or not any legislative or regulatory changes are necessary to ensure that shippers continue to have reasonable access to the nation’s rail network. Railroads and shippers differ widely in their views as to whether railroads are fulfilling their CCO. Numerous railroads, shippers, public officials, and transportation professionals were interviewed for this study, and papers, both academic and testimonial, were reviewed. The views of both shippers and railroads are summarized. The principal takeaway is that the CCO must be preserved, but there needs to be a better definition of the concept and clarification of its meaning and applicability in today’s transportation environment. Historical Background on the Common Carrier Obligation Public‐sector intervention in the marketplace is hardly a recent phenomenon. The idea of governmental involvement in economic activity through regulation traces back to the earliest legal code. The Code of Hammurabi, which is a Babylonian Code of Law of ancient Mesopotamia dated to 1 Dr. Mulvey is a former Commissioner and Acting Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board. Mr. McBride is a partner with the law firm Van Ness Feldman, LLP. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the assistance from Dr. Thomas M. Corsi on this project. Dr. Corsi is the Michelle L. Smith Professor of Logistics at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 194 Motor Vehicle Transportation
    Updated 2019−20 Wis. Stats. Published and certified under s. 35.18. September 17, 2021. 1 Updated 19−20 Wis. Stats. MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION 194.02 CHAPTER 194 MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION 194.01 Definitions. 194.24 Application; form. 194.015 Planting and harvesting period. 194.25 Nature of certificates. 194.02 Legislative intent. 194.31 Inspection of records. 194.025 Discrimination prohibited. 194.32 Buses, restrictions. 194.03 Interstate commerce and intrastate commerce. 194.33 Municipal consent. 194.04 Certificates; licenses; permits. 194.34 Contract motor carriers; license; application and hearing. 194.05 Exemption. 194.355 Operation under certificate, license or permit. 194.06 Public interest. 194.37 Enforcement. 194.07 Operations subject to law. 194.38 Regulatory powers of department. 194.08 Effect of this chapter on powers of department and municipalities. 194.407 Unified carrier registration system. 194.09 Marking carrier vehicles. 194.10 Service of process on nonresident carriers. 194.41 Contract of liability for damage to person or property. 194.11 Inspection of premises or vehicles. 194.42 Exemption from undertaking; proof of financial responsibility; revoca- 194.145 Hearing; decision. tion. 194.16 Operation while delinquent unlawful. 194.43 Private motor carriers; regulation by department. 194.17 Penalties. 194.46 Amendment, suspension, or revocation of certificate, license, or permit; 194.178 Uniform traffic citation. hearing. 194.20 Certificates and licenses for carriers in interstate commerce and intrastate 194.51 Suit to recover protested tax. commerce. 194.53 Certain liability provisions in motor carrier transportation contracts pro- 194.23 Certificate required. hibited. Cross−reference: See also chs.
    [Show full text]